across the sea. They deal on terms of equality, a.nd neither needs protection from the other., In this case, moreover, the libellant had on several previous occasions accepted similar bills of lading, and only by great, inattention could he, or those to whom he entrusted his business, have failed to notice the limitation clause now resisted. It does not appear, therefore, that the limitation ·was an unexpected, unusual, or novel one. Onthe contrary, it is such an one as,-it seems to me, t.he shipper might reasonably have expected the bill of lading to contain; and, however hardly it may result against the shipper, I cannot see that with regard to a deck load, and looking to the general rules of maritime law with regard to deck lading, it can be said to be against public policy. Being of opinion, therefore, that by the exce'ption in the bill of lading the ship-owner is exempted from 'oontribution for the cattle jettiaoned, I dismiss the libel.
(District Oourt, S. D. Florida. May, 1881.)
When valuable service has been performed, which renders the tinal saving of property more certain or easy, continued el1:ertion is not necessary to entitle the original salvora to a portion of the salvage awarded. .
Libel in Admiralty. G. Browne Patterson, for libellants. L. W. Bethel and J. B. Browne, for reRpondents. LOCKE, D. J. The bark Tolomeo was discovered a.ground on a point of the Florida reef, near Tortugas, and boarded by the libellants' crews of four smacks, who found her abandoned and on fire, burning fore and aft, the cabin and much of the deck having been burned and fallen in. Having nothing but a few ordinary buckets, they could do nothing towards putting out the flames, but carried out an anchor to prevent the vessel drifting off, cut away the rigging of the v.7,noA-32
only sta.nding tn:ast 80 that it went over the side, and cut two
holes in her that she might fill with water. The fire consumed everything above the water line, but about 600 bales of cotton were left in the lower hold. This the libellants commenced to save, but had taken out but about 70 bales when a violent norther drove them from their work and they were· compelled to seek a harhor. Upon their return, two days after,they found that, although the anchors had held, the wreck had split in pieces and the cotton gone. One of the smacks, her master thinking it had gone adrift, followed the course of the gulf stream some 200 miles. The other vessels remained in the vicinity, and, as Boon as the weather permitted, commenced searching the bottom by dragging and diving, and found that the cotton had been swept off but a short distance and sunk in water of from five to ten fathoms, where it lay scattered on the bottom. Two of the then went to Key West, a distance of about 75 miles, to carry the cotton already saved, but in three or four days returned and again went to work. The other remained at work, and the one which had gone in search of floating cotton returned the fifth or sixth day. One remained, constantly engaged, and the others, after more or less delay; came back. None of them resumed their usual occupation of fishing. In the mean time 12 other small vessela, whose owners and crews are respondents herein, arrived and went to work, without the original salvors making objection or having any understanding with them.. They have saved, by naked diving and dragging the bottom, some 400 bales; which have been libelled and sold, and a..salvage of from 50 to 75 per cent. awarded, according to the depth of water andpequliar ,circumstances attending the. saving of e.ach lot. This libel prays a proportion of the. salvage awarded all those not engaged in scuttling the vessel.· The defence has been that it hasnpt been shown thatthescuttlingwa.s of any material benefit, as it may be presumed, ,that th,e vessel had bilged, and was full of water before that; and, second, that the libellants' leaving the property was an abandop.ment of the work which sacrificed any interest they may have had
in In impport of the presumption of they 'have shown the dangerous position in which the was plac.ed. the character of the bottom, and severe weather; and of abandonment, the fact that a consortship, which had been originally formed, had been broken after the breaking up of the wreck. The parties have testified to the appearance of the vessel before being scuttled, her buoyancy and being lightly aground and standing upright, and her rapidly settling and careening as she filled. I do not think the presumption of her having been bilged, notwithstanding the bad weather and dangerous bottom, suffiCient to overcome the positive testimony of the opinion and belief of parties present, founded, as they appear to be, upon well-established facts. To anyone conversant with such matters, it is not a difficult thing to determine, from the comparative buoyancy. of a vessel lightly aground, whether or not she' is full of water. I am satisfied that in this case the vessel was notSQ until scuttled, and that she would, in 8.11 probability, have burned to a shell, and, being gradually lightened by the burning of her cargo and upper works, drifted off and sunk in deep water. The scuttling of the ship doubtless saved from fire whatever was subsequently saved from water, and the anchoring, although it did not prevent the breaking up of the wreck, did prevent it going adrift as a whole, and floating into deeper water, where it would undoubtedly have been totally lost. The course pursued by. the libellants was the best that could be done, and that it did not prove successful was not their fault. Finding that beneficial service had been rendered, have the libellants lost their rights by abandonment ? The principle of law has been well established that where benefits have been rendered to property by one set, of salvors, nothing but a voluntary, absolute abandonment. of the enterprise and property will lose aright to save or share with others who,do-save finally; such an abandonment, cum animo non revertendi, as betokens an absence of. all further interest in the property, and an indifference as to whether it be saved or not. This is, the rule where beneficial service has been ren-
derea which has made the final saving more certain6r easy; but it will not hold good where but futile attempts have been made, no matter how strenuous or well·intended they may have been. In that class of cases nothing but constant exertion and continued possession will continue such rights. This line marks' the difference between the cases cited on each side and relied upon in this case. In the Ionge Bastian, 5 C. Rob. 323, the first salvors having rendered what was considered valua.ble service, by floating the ship from the rocks, in spite of her subsequent sinking, although they did not stay by her, were permitted to share with those who finally saved her. Iil the Island City, 1 Black, 121, the schooner Kensington, although neither perfecting the salvage service nor remainingby the vessel,-neither continuing her efforts nor retaining 'poRsession,-shared in the award of salvage because she had'brought the ship into a place of greater comparative safety. Outhe other hand, in the John Wurtz, Olcott, 462, it did not appear that any beneficial service had been l'endered, :by Jones and his associates, notwithstanding their strenuous efforts, and the remarks of the learned judge, rega.rding the necessity' of possession, can be understood only as applying to such class of cases. The India, 1 W. Rob. 406; The Henry Ewbank, 1 Sum'n. 417. The presumption of an intention by the libellants to give up the work and abandon the property, arising from the break. ing of the consortship, is rebutted successfully by the facts of their future actions. They took an interest in the property, used what diligence they reasonably could in saving some of it, and kept themselves sufficiently near to be thoroughly informed, that it was being saved as rapidly as possible. Although they did not apply themselves const8llltly to the labor of saving it, they never gave up an interest in it nor · voluntarily abandoned it. They are, I consider, entitled to a portion of the salvage awarded the others; but, as the labor and hardship encountered by the final salvors was great com· pared with the salvage awarded, although the percentage given was unusually large, a small proportion will remuner-
ate them better than the respondents will be compensated by the balance, when the actual labor is considered. In The Concordia, decided in this court in 1855, with facts somewhat resembling this,the court gave 8 per cent. of the salvage. I consider 5 per cent. for the libellants as fair a division as can, be made between the parties, and the decree will follow accordingly.
(District Court, 8. D. New York. February 15,1881.)
1. BEAMEN'SWAGES-ExTRA WAGES-SWEDISHOODE-VOYAGE DONED IN A FOREIGN PORT-MARSHALLING ASSETS-'-'REMITTING SEAMEN TO SUIT IN PERSONAM-MASTER'S LmN.
The Swedish bark A., being in custody of t'he marslnil under: libel for collisiol1, filed, in this distriCt 'by an insurance company, a French corporation, who insured the cargo of the colliding vessel, and an appeal having been taken from the decree dismissing the libel, the owners were informed by the master of the' facts, ahd they instructed him not to bond the vessel, and to look tu the vessel f6r payment bUhe crew. The master and seamen thereupon libelled her for wages ; a portion ofthe 'crew having been discharged on their consent, the master, mate, and two seamen remaining on the vessel till the trial of their suit for wages. The 'company, as intervenors, oppose the claim of the master and seamen. ' Held, that the master simply discharged his duty to the owners in keeping the crew during the temporary delay, until definite instructions were received from the owners to abandon the voyage; that the voyage having been broken up in a foreign port, the seamen were entitled to three months' extra wages, under the Code of Sweden, which should begin to run from the time the master received instructions that he was not to be put in funds to pay the crew. As to them, this amounted to an abandonment of the voyage. Also lLeld, that this i9"not a case for marshalling assets by declining jurisdiction of the seamen's claim for wages, thus remitting them to a suit against the owners in the home port. The admiralty court will not thus exercise its discretion where the remedy suggested is likely to be so delayed that the creditor's relief may thereby be seriously prejudiced; that no equity exists in favor of the intervenors, appellants from the adverse decree of this court, who, being a foreign